Yesterday Father Orthoduck pointed out that both Matthew 5 and Leviticus 19 are holiness codes. Father Orthoduck should have said that the Matthew 5 passage continues over into Matthew 6. Remember that the chapter divisions are not found in the original manuscripts, but were added centuries later. Father Orthoduck asked you to look at the parallels between the two passages, including the fact that the New Testament passage tells us to be perfect as our Father is perfect, while the Old Testament passage says to be holy as God is holy.
In fact, if you look closely, both have the same structure. Leviticus 19 appears to be a mixture of the Ten Commandments and of other social and moral prescriptions. Our Lord in Matthew 5-6 cites the Ten Commandments and also cites other social and moral prescriptions. The parallels are plentiful. However, in Matthew 5 and 6, Our Lord Jesus Christ takes the Law and expands it to the inner person as well as the outer person. He is careful to say in that passage that he has not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but rather to fulfill them.
In that context, and in the context that this is a discussion over Leviticus 19, let’s take a look at Matthew 6. It says:
So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
It should be obvious that Our Lord continues the concern of the Old Testament about taking care of the poor. In fact, look carefully at the wording. He does not say “if you give,” but “when you give to the needy.” The argument that is made by some is that the New Testament is not under the Law and therefore that it is neither mandatory that you do something nor should either Church or State force something (say a tax-supported welfare program) on you. It must be strictly voluntary. But, if you look at Our Lord’s expectation, it is that giving to the poor is expected. It seems an odd argument to make that both the Old Testament and the New Testament expect regular giving to the poor, but that this may not carry over into either Church or State policy!
Which brings Father Orthoduck to a final subject. Was there an Old Testament punishment for not following Leviticus 19 and is there a New Testament punishment associated with Matthew 6? Father Orthoduck is speaking only of giving to the needy at this point, but he would like to point out that several of the violations brought up in both Leviticus 19 and Matthew 5 and 6 come with serious punishments attached. For instance, in Matthew 5, Our Lord Jesus says that to call someone a fool is tantamount to murder, which theoretically may subject you to (eternal) capital punishment. The same is true of several of the Leviticus rules.
You see, if there was punishment involved with the failure to carry out the Levitical injunction to harvest the land only once so that both the poor and the wild animals might feed, and if there were also a punishment involved with the failure to carry out Our Lord’s call in the New Testament, then it would seem that God is expecting something more than a just purely voluntary “when you feel the inner call” giving.
As you might guess, there were punishments involved. As you read the Old Testament prophets, several of them give several reasons for the 70 year Exile. The reasons were many, from unjust judges who were bought–thus the poor did not receive true justice–, to unjust scales, to the reason for the 70 year period being the 70 Sabbath Years that Israel never officially observed as a nation despite its being part of the regulation. But, please note that an entire nation, whether guilty or innocent, was punished with exile for the failures that happened even before they were born. That is, the failure of the nation to enforce justice, care for the poor, ecology, moral law, etc., etc., led to punishment even for the innocent.
Are there New Testament equivalents to this punishment? Yes, there are, both individual and corporate. They are found in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew and in the Book of the Apocalypse, called the Revelation. The passage in Matthew is actually a rather well known one and speaks to individual punishment for the failure to take care of the poor and the needy:
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment …
Modern Protestant thought has gutted those verses. The plain sense of those verses, late in Matthew, is that care of the poor and the needy will be one of the criteria in the Final Judgment to see whether you were truly a Christian. (If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.) You may have some choice as to how to care for the poor and needy, but you do not have a choice as to whether to care for the poor and needy, under the possibility of future eternal judgment. The story of Lazarus and Dives also has the same theme. There, both the themes of listening to the Word and carrying it out are brought together. Dives neither listened to the Word nor did he carry out the Word, and Lazarus was the witness against him at his very gate.
Now, please note that the Book of the Revelation parallels what happened in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, the punishment for the failure to observe what God required did not come for hundreds of years. In the same way, the Book of Revelation places a coming punishment for nations for their failures, both moral and social. The Orthodox do not believe in a Rapture before the Tribulation. Thus, we also see the innocent and the guilty in any country suffering God’s punishment, even though the acts for which the nation is being punished may have taken place before the birth of any of the people currently present. There are some exceptions to that in the Book of Revelation, but they are just that, exceptions. In this context, please notice that in Revelation 17, the nations are dumbfounded at the punishments against them, but they are punished as nations.
Thus, to argue that a “Christian” nation may not make any laws that allow them to take care of the poor and needy is rather odd. Any nation which knows that she will be judged for her moral and social failures, better be ready to approve those laws which are necessary to make sure that she fulfills her duties! This is the parallel to the individual who, looking at the Gospel of Matthew, decides to fast and to care for the needy as an act of obedience to his/her God. A nation is also responsible for obedience to God, even if she has internal fights with her citizens to convince them that the laws are needed and wise. This is the parallel to the individual who wars with himself/herself in order to follow God. And is also the parallel to Old Testmant Israel who was punished as a nation for a failure to enforce Leviticus 19 in all its verses.
Any wise nation who sees the coming judgment, ought to certainly use its authority to govern to ensure that there are mechanisms clearly in place to obey both God’s moral and God’s social expectations. To argue that this is not part of what a nation is entitled to do is to argue that God was wrong for punishing Old Testament Israel for its social failures and will be wrong in punishing future Babylon the Great and other nations for the same thing. A nation does not simply govern at the will of the people. It also governs at the will of God.
I am not disappointed! I like your line of reasoning as I have often said the same thing. As a nation, we are under responsibility to care for the least in our nation, as commanded by God. We are also under the authority of that national government per Romans 13. I just do not understand ppl who consider themselves good Christians complaining about “enabling poor ppl” when that is exactly what we are called to do and since there are so many poor, we need the authority and size and complexity of a government to carry out that call. I also don’t understand the fact that “good Christians” can spread lies and inuendo about other ppl and not blink an eye because they disagree with them politically…but that’s another rant. 😉
Fr. Ernesto, here are some thoughts on your post:
1. The government forces us to pay taxes. If we don’t, they will confiscate more of our property or take away our freedom (or both). Voting for more social programs and higher taxes so that the government can take more of people’s money (property) by force to give to the poor is a very different type of “giving”. This “giving by force” does not seem to be what Jesus was talking about.
2. Government programs are known for waste and inefficiency. In addition, politics enters the equation and priorities/philosophies/agendas at odds with our beliefs as Christians can be promoted. Finally, we have little say in how our money is spent by the government in social programs.
3. When we have the freedom to choose what charity or agency to give our money too, we have more control over quality and how the money is spent. We also get to decide how much we give, as opposed to government force.
I think you are making a leap by essentially arguing that anything that God commands of Christians he also commands of government.
You’re a Christian of some sort, right Eric?
Point #1: See Romans 13. GOD commands you to pay the taxes that are mandated by government. The government has a God-given duty to maintain the common good. This requires taxation. This does not, however, necessarily require direct redistribution and, in any event, these days that sort of thing is a drop in the bucket compared with the overall size of the federal budget. However, the latter is indeed required if we refuse to restructure our economic institutions, say along the German model, in ways that promote the common good and a level of economic equality required for sustainability apart from such redistribution.
Points #2 and #3: I don’t think that, in general, government programs are any less efficient than programs or whatever of the same scale in the private sector. In some cases, such as Medicare, the government entity is demonstrably MORE efficient: no marketing costs, no big bonuses for execs, and lower administrative costs.
Regarding the rest of it: there are plenty of places you can give your money, and, in doing so, lower your tax bill. Did you know that you can deduct up to half your gross income if you give it to charity, the Church, or whatever? I would take statements such as yours more seriously if I saw more people who claim to be Christian giving in a way that is truly sacrificial. In the past, there were wealthy men, such as R.G. Letourneau, who gave away 90% of what they earned and lived on the remaining 10%. If you are Orthodox, then you should know that patristic annals are replete with stories of people, including clergy, doing such things.
But even if everyone who had the means did that, I suspect that there would still be a need for government involvement, certainly in the area of the structure of economic entities as well as such things as occupational safety, working conditions, etc. I suggest you look into the history of the Byzantine Empire on these questions and the way in which things are done in Germany. The interesting thing there is, the state is really minimally involved except for setting the basic rules within a pre-determined structure that dates to the Allied occupation after WWII.
Well, except that Father Orthoduck was not making an utilitarian argument, but a Scriptural argument. If God is willing to punish entire nations for not taking care of the widow, the orphan, the sick, and the needy, then this means that God is expecting governments to have mechanisms in place to make sure that this happens.
You are making utilitarian arguments, making claims that would be hard to fully back up. If you look back at the history of private charities, even unto today, you will see story after story of money diverted that never reached its intended recipients. In fact, while there are some great private organizations, there are some absolutely terrible ones, and you would not know about them were there not a government law requiring open reporting of how much money makes it where and to whom.
In the same way there are both great and terrible government programs. But, Father Orthoduck’s argument was not whether Father Orthoduck could show that a certain type of program was efficient. That is an argument that needs to be had regularly. Father Orthoduck’s argument was that God requires both individuals and governments to give to the poor and the needy, under threat of punishment. Father Orthoduck would point out that the threat of either eternal personal punishment or terrestrial corporate punishment is most certainly God using his “force” to require you to give, or else. Fear not the one who can destroy your body in a jail cell, fear the one who can destroy your soul!
Well, Eric, just point out that the Founding Fathers were not really orthodox Christians and that the United States government was not founded on any Christian ethics and that obligation goes away. 🙂 Humanists and secularists have been making that point for decades … though they have often tended to see nothing wrong with using taxes to support social welfare programs anywhere to the left of Ayn Rand.